The two "Twilight" films have grossed about $1.1 billion worldwide with total production budgets of about $90 million. Like the franchise or not, it is a tremendous financial success. And while "Star Trek" did make less in theaters than PC, it did manage to sell something like $20 million more in DVDs.

The two "Narnia" films have about the same total worldwide box office as the "Twilight" films but their combined production costs are much higher - over $400 million before marketing costs are added in. LWW was a success in theaters on DVD, but PC did not come close. This is why Disney wanted a smaller budget and then eventually left the table.

Fox cannot ignore the non-US movie market. Without international grosses, LWW would not have been profitable - and PC, if it were made at all, would have been a financial disaster. And that would have meant no greenlight for VDT.

But there's no real point in debating it. Fox/Walden hired a marketing firm to handle promotion in the UK last year!

I get what you are saying about Star Trek, icarus. Based on all the media coverage last year, one would think it was a runaway smash at the box office...but really, it wasn't!

I agree there should be international marketing but they're main audience will probably be US so they have to try and market much more here. A lot more focus I guess on America.

...and the U.K. of course! Narnia is probably just as proportionally popular over there as here.

I don't want to be the doomsayer here, but I just have this bad feeling that if VDT is not successful enough, it means the end of Narnia on film. At least for a couple of years, whereupon they'll have to "reboot" it like they are Spider-man and Superman. That would be sad.

The problem with studio honchos is that they will grab at any succesful business model and imitate it to death. In movie busines this means that they pressure ALL superhero movies to be like The Dark Knight. That was, in fact, the reason that Sam Raimi and Columbia disagreed over so much for the aborted Spider-Man 4.

What this means for Narnia is: they will want it to be like other films (action! romance! Susan+Caspian4Ever!), because they believe it's the safest way to make a profit (oh! the things they don't know!)

If I remember correctly, they said that PC would have to make $500 million or somewhere thereabouts to break even or was it make a profit? One of the two. The rule of thumb that I was taught in my media classes was that when you see $200 million for a budget, figure what would be half of that on top of the budget for advertising. So it would be something like $300 million instead of $200. The "budget" we see is just for making the film. Not for the advertising. Now I am assuming that is advertising within the U.S. only.

For VDT, I would like to see a LOT fewer tv spots produced. I think we had over 12 for PC. Each of those cost money to produce. I'd like to see two maybe three good solid tv commercials instead run on a large variety of tv stations. Spend the money on spreading the commercials around and running them frequently instead of producing multiple spots.

If I remember correctly, they said that PC would have to make $500 million or somewhere thereabouts to break even or was it make a profit? One of the two. The rule of thumb that I was taught in my media classes was that when you see $200 million for a budget, figure what would be half of that on top of the budget for advertising.

Variety had a rule that I believe still apllies: Multiply the budget by 2.5 and you get the gross needed to break even. This factors in the marketing and print costs as well. That would line up with PC's $500 million: 2.5 * $200 million = $500 million.

So as of now, VDT would have to make 2.5 * $140 million = $350 million total just at the boxoffice to break even. I think that is a very real possibility.

As far as adevertising and publicity, as long as it's better than PC's, I will be pleased. But why not just go ahead and do a great job at it?

While Prince Caspian received a lot of flack, Narnia was never destined to be the next Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter, despite its auspicious beginning. The first movie was based on the only widely-known book in the Narnia series and it was a complete journey, whereas all of the Potters and Rings were famous and had the benefit of story continuity. The wait was longer between the Narnia movies than for Potter and Rings, and Prince Caspian came off as just another fantasy adventure, nearly indistinguishable from the plethora of similar fantasies made in the wake of Potter and Rings.

Despite its December release, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader faces the same challenges as Prince Caspian, including another two and a half years of downtime. Previously scheduled for May 7, Voyage was dropped by Walt Disney Pictures after Caspian's fall from grace. Later, 20th Century Fox picked Voyage up and scheduled it for Dec. 10.

Since the first Narnia, two major fantasy pictures have debuted in early-to-mid December: Eragon in 2006 and The Golden Compass in 2007, grossing a middling $75 million and $70.1 million, respectively. Based on its description, Voyage of the Dawn Treader sounds like it will be just another fantasy movie, which doesn't augur well for the franchise's blockbuster aspirations, but the book on which it's based is reportedly dearer to Narnia's disciples than Prince Caspian was. One should expect the ship to sink further than Prince Caspian, and it would take an extraordinary final product and marketing effort for Voyage to tread water.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2677&p=.htm

Thought I'd share an opinion that's on the "outside" of the Narnia fandom group. I actually agree almost 100% with this editorial except for the final sentence... I really believe it will do better than Prince Caspian. Though the writer is completely correct that the biggest hurdle the Narnia franchise has always faced is the fact that only the first book is the very well-known and most often read. Not everyone goes on to read the rest of the series' books like they do with other popular fantasy series.

The consensus was that PC needed to make about $500M to break even. PC's $420M box office and ~$80M in DVDs puts it right at break even point. And $15M for broadcasting rights didn't hurt. All of these numbers are frankly pathetic compared to LWW, though.

But remember that the LA Times reported Disney spent a ton of money on marketing, perhaps as much as $150 million, more than for LWW. If that is true, PC lost a lot of money. (I'm leaving out of all of this tax credits that the production received from certain countries, which would have helped defay some costs...)

What Brandon Gray has left out of his Narnia thrashing is that Prince Caspian was released after Iron Man, which performed well above expectations, and was followed by one box office hit after another, starting with Indiana Jones. Also forgotten was PC's terrible marketing, lack of focus, and increased violence that turned away the family-friendly audience that embraced LWW. These problems weren't just in the US but worldwide. With a better film and a more-favorable release date, PC could have pulled in $500M worldwide and done slightly better on DVD.

He's spot-on in citing the long period of time between films as a problem and general lack of awareness. This is why I keep suggesting that Fox, Walden, HarperCollins, or anyone who has the power to do so should get these books into stores and schools ASAP.

Narnia is a part of pop culture (American and British, anyway) much more so than Eragon and Pullman's slop, and that comparison probably isn't the best. Millions of people went to see LWW - and they will go see VDT, too, but they have to know about it first and not hear that it is "a much darker film."

I agree with f_k - I expect VDT will out-perform PC. The source material is much better. We just have to hope that the production and marketing teams don't screw up.

I think the reason why such a big deal was made of Star Trek's box office results was the fact that no Star Trek movie had ever made that much money, the previous movie in the series completely bombed, and the last tv show was canceled in 2005 after the fourth season. Star Trek XI essentially resurrected a franchise that was almost completely dead. PC is considered to not have done as well because it made roughly half of what LWW did and cost an enormous amount of money to make and market.

LWW definitly did better than PC.....some would argue that it was because of when it was released. but I don't think so. there were a lot of movies being released during that time frame and I think it did as well as it could for when it was released and what movies it was competing with! I hope VotDT does SO much better!!